So did you happen to read beyond the line you bolded there? If you had, you might come to greater understanding of another's point of view.

How is a greater under understanding of the thought process of a retarded person relevant to the discussion.

/sexism is discrimination based on your gender. Not having something someone else wants.

I don't agree with her definition either--nor yours. But I won't call either of you retarded. Rather, I'll try to encapsulate what's really going on in ways that are fair to both points of view.

1) What really upsets her in the racism/sexism context is white men drawing false moral equivalences between racism by blacks against whites and sexism by women against men. Yes, black people can be racially prejudiced, and women can be sex-prejudiced. But she feels in both contexts that black on white racism/female on male sexism aren't real social problems. Blacks and women have less power to hurt whites/men because of their prejudices than whites/men have to hurt blacks/women because of theirs.

For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with her in the racism context. And 20 years ago I might have agreed with her in the sexism context too.

2) You've confused sexism with sex discrimination. But that's beside the point. What really has you upset is that in your life, you've felt unfairly attacked because either you are white, you are male, or both. You've experienced immense pressure in your life to overcome race and sex based judgments, and you think others should be held to the same standard. So when this professor comes along and says blacks can't be racist, and women can't be sexist, it's an affront to your sense of equity.

I think she's linguistically incorrect. I think her words demonstrate a misunderstanding of linguistics. Words mean what people use them to mean. And people use racism and sexism to describe prejudice based on race and sex, not merely majoritarian prejudice.

But I also t ...

Fascinating.

What's interesting about number 2. on your list is that it's the SAME argument and yet it seems to elicit little empathy. Men feel bad when stereotyped as privileged abusers. Do they feel equally bad when stereotyped as CEOs of major corporations? Women feel bad when stereotyped as witless sex objects. Do they feel equally bad when stereotyped as competent wives? Key point is that both sides feel equally bad.

EVERYONE wants to be acknowledged as an individual with a relatively unique history, capability, and future.

Men should be free to choose being a stay at home dad, a secretary, a nurse, to cry, to be confused, to be weak, and to experience the full range of what life can offer. There is validity to exploring how men are also victimized by gender stereotyping.

FTA: Further, she argues, men, who are in power in our society, cannot legitimately cry sexism. "You can say [this ad is] prejudiced, in bad taste, insulting, not funny," she said. "But it can't be sexist. Just like a black person can't be racist. Sexism is a word with a very specific meaning, which is a certain group having more access than another group to the things that make life worth living, such as high wages and good housing."

Did I just see that? Really?

Holding persons to a different standard than everyone else solely because of their race is an inherently racist. Also, holding a given sex to a different standard than everyone else solely because of their sex is inherently sexist. Treating everyone the same regardless of their race = not racist.

I have no idea who this woman is but in light of these statements I've concluded she has nothing intelligent or worthwhile to say - just like most feminists.

Potter82:FTA: Further, she argues, men, who are in power in our society, cannot legitimately cry sexism. "You can say [this ad is] prejudiced, in bad taste, insulting, not funny," she said. "But it can't be sexist. Just like a black person can't be racist. Sexism is a word with a very specific meaning, which is a certain group having more access than another group to the things that make life worth living, such as high wages and good housing."

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 533x594]

Did I just see that? Really?

Holding persons to a different standard than everyone else solely because of their race is an inherently racist. Also, holding a given sex to a different standard than everyone else solely because of their sex is inherently sexist. Treating everyone the same regardless of their race = not racist.

I have no idea who this woman is but in light of these statements I've concluded she has nothing intelligent or worthwhile to say - just like most feminists.

No, it's totally true! Black people can't be racist because black and white are the only two races on the planet. She goes on to explain that asians are robots and mexicans don't really count.

And 45 years of a fire hose of piss and venom is sort of monotonous. But that's DIFFERENT! *snort* It's all 5th grade "nuh UH!" bullsh*t but it moves way too much money around to stop beating the pots and pans under everybody''s windows, now.

Tommy Moo:I'm sick of hearing about how men cannot be victims of sexism because society innately gives us privilege and women are in a net worse situation. Society gives men different privileges, but it evens out. Both genders face particular challenges that the other doesn't, and have access to particular privileges that the other doesn't. I will never face the level of risk that women face with regard to sexual assault, and I will probably make more money than most women throughout my life. Women will never face the stress of the expectation of making money, or the dread that they will be unloved and insignificant if they don't make partner at the firm, and they do get the benefit of having twelve guys show up at the ready any time they have a flat tire or need a piece of furniture moved.

If you're practicing for an attempt to dethrone Pocket Ninja, I say, you're looking good.

teenage mutant ninja rapist:Anayalator: FTFA: Further, she argues, men, who are in power in our society, cannot legitimately cry sexism. "You can say [this ad is] prejudiced, in bad taste, insulting, not funny," she said. "But it can't be sexist. Just like a black person can't be racist. Sexism is a word with a very specific meaning, which is a certain group having more access than another group to the things that make life worth living, such as high wages and good housing."

Um...

Yep. Thats the attitude that keeps men laughing at feminists.keep it up girls. Just for the laughs

Any man who changes his behavior according to some commercial is an idiot in the first place.

Nooo, that's not exactly how it works. It's more that they grow up thinking that's the norm, because everything claims it is. Girls only have a 'pink phase' when they're little for that exact reason. That's why people get annoyed at little shiat--it's not little, it usually represents a huge trend.

Toxic Park:PsiChick: SearchN: Gail Dines, an expert on sexist images in the media and a professor of sociology and women's studies at Wheelock College in Boston, agrees. "It's not funny because it normalizes masculine behavior and makes a joke of it," she told Yahoo! Shine in a phone interview. "It's the reality of many women's lives, who get dinner ready, take care of the children, help with homework and do the housework, while the husbands are, in fact, sloth-like."

She almost made it through without slipping and showing the man hate card. So close. Maybe next time.

That's called the 'Mook' by advertisers. Yes, it exists IRL. She's stating fact, not opinion, and she's right; commercials like that train men to behave that way (along with a lot of other culture). That's part of why it's sexist; it's encouraging that culture. Half the men I know act like this, and while I sympathize--you are what culture makes you--maybe we should change that culture so we aren't just farking men over.

Ordinarily I tend to agree with your posts, but I think you're focusing way too hard on men with this particular concept. Do you not think women fall prey to this exact same situation? Men/husbands/boyfriends aren't the ones telling their women to buy $50 shampoo and wrinkle cream ya know.

There's an entire feminist movement pointing that one out. I don't need to add on. :p

PsiChick:SearchN: Gail Dines, an expert on sexist images in the media and a professor of sociology and women's studies at Wheelock College in Boston, agrees. "It's not funny because it normalizes masculine behavior and makes a joke of it," she told Yahoo! Shine in a phone interview. "It's the reality of many women's lives, who get dinner ready, take care of the children, help with homework and do the housework, while the husbands are, in fact, sloth-like."

She almost made it through without slipping and showing the man hate card. So close. Maybe next time.

That's called the 'Mook' by advertisers. Yes, it exists IRL. She's stating fact, not opinion, and she's right; commercials like that train men to behave that way (along with a lot of other culture). That's part of why it's sexist; it's encouraging that culture. Half the men I know act like this, and while I sympathize--you are what culture makes you--maybe we should change that culture so we aren't just farking men over.

You really are right off the deep end, and the best part is, it's entirely clear you actually think you are progressive and intelligent.

I'll explain. Someone makes a pretty good point, while ignoring the blatant sexism and stereotyping of the original author. You then take that blatant bullshiat one step further and pretend like this is some kind of trend. Is the concept real? Sure, the media portrayal constant, probably, I don't know. What I do know is that, as with almost all things, the stereotype is false, stupid and bigoted.

Not only does the original point pretend that women do all the house work and raise the kids and cook the food. In and of itself ridiculous. But you go on and reinforce that bullshiat with your own bullshiat, something along the lines of "men are lazy and disgusting, but it's not their fault because TV made them that way".

Seriously Psigirl, you need a reality check, and it can not come through a TV, nor the (apparently) incompetent instruction you've received in psychology.

Anayalator:FTFA: Further, she argues, men, who are in power in our society, cannot legitimately cry sexism. "You can say [this ad is] prejudiced, in bad taste, insulting, not funny," she said. "But it can't be sexist. Just like a black person can't be racist. Sexism is a word with a very specific meaning, which is a certain group having more access than another group to the things that make life worth living, such as high wages and good housing."

Um...

Dines' response is a primary example of why I don't like ______ Studies "experts". They've simply cultivated a group of people with a tunnel-vision perspective on some social construct. Then they exclude all dissenting opinions and monopolize the language and discussion by declaring themselves THE experts on whatever subject they're studying in order to minimize the opinions of whoever disagrees with them.

So here's the thing: based on her own definition of the word "sexist" or "racist", she's not wrong. HOWEVER...

Dines appears to be laboring under the ridiculous notion that her definition is the only one, or even that it is the most relevant, important, or most widely used definition. Her argument is useless not because what she's saying is wrong, strictly speaking, but because it totally fails to address the argument and instead starts a quibbling semantic war by insisting that the word only means what she says it does.

She is completely overlooking that for people who are NOT looking through the myopic lens of a Sociology-cum-Women's-Studies degree, that the more oft-used definition of the words "sexist" or "racist" are simply: acting or speaking in a way that shows inherent prejudices about another group, or the belief that a person in one group is inherently superior or worth more than someone in another group.

I find the common definition MORE USEFUL and MORE MEANINGFUL than hers.Perhaps her definition is more useful in writing papers for Women's Studies courses, but it the problem with it is that being sexist or racist is no longer a function of what you do or say, but a function of who you are and where you live. If you are not sexist it is not because you are a decent person who treats others equally, it simply means that you are a woman. The term can no longer be used usefully to describe any person or action, it is simply an observation about which groups have the most power in a society.

The definition she is operating under may have a place in academic speech, or in observations of whole societies. But she needs to find a different word for it, or at the very least understand that in non-academic settings, NO ONE is using her definition. She should acknowledge that racially or sexually prejudicial behavior and speech IS distinct from simple insults, no matter who it comes from or who it is towards, and address the complaint on THOSE terms instead of just changing the subject.

WhippingBoy:Mugato: PsiChick: commercials like that train men to behave that way

Any man who changes his behavior according to some commercial is an idiot in the first place.

It's PsiChick. You're wasting your time responding. Soon she'll be posting absurd citations to counter arguments that absolutely no one has actually made.

But in a sick, twisted way I want to know how PsiChick can spin the SUV commercial in which men in the woods hear Dueling Banjos and run like hell because they're afraid of being raped all Deliverance style.

The Flexecutioner:redqueenmeg: The Flexecutioner: well, she married the guy on the couch, not the one in her dream. he farts when he wants to and eats fried chicken in sweatpants on a couch while watching an awesome tv while she wears a business suit presumably on her way somewhere important just after walking out of the kitchen. who's the stupid one?

redqueenmeg:The Flexecutioner: redqueenmeg: The Flexecutioner: well, she married the guy on the couch, not the one in her dream. he farts when he wants to and eats fried chicken in sweatpants on a couch while watching an awesome tv while she wears a business suit presumably on her way somewhere important just after walking out of the kitchen. who's the stupid one?

crap, you just described my life till 2012.

i assume you ditched the zero and got with the hero?

The zero ditched me. Haven't found a hero.

*jumps up from couch, wipes chicken grease from face with t-shirt, tucks in t-shirt*

So did you happen to read beyond the line you bolded there? If you had, you might come to greater understanding of another's point of view.

How is a greater under understanding of the thought process of a retarded person relevant to the discussion.

/sexism is discrimination based on your gender. Not having something someone else wants.

I don't agree with her definition either--nor yours. But I won't call either of you retarded. Rather, I'll try to encapsulate what's really going on in ways that are fair to both points of view.

1) What really upsets her in the racism/sexism context is white men drawing false moral equivalences between racism by blacks against whites and sexism by women against men. Yes, black people can be racially prejudiced, and women can be sex-prejudiced. But she feels in both contexts that black on white racism/female on male sexism aren't real social problems. Blacks and women have less power to hurt whites/men because of their prejudices than whites/men have to hurt blacks/women because of theirs.

For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with her in the racism context. And 20 years ago I might have agreed with her in the sexism context too.

2) You've confused sexism with sex discrimination. But that's beside the point. What really has you upset is that in your life, you've felt unfairly attacked because either you are white, you are male, or both. You've experienced immense pressure in your life to overcome race and sex based judgments, and you think others should be held to the same standard. So when this professor comes along and says blacks can't be racist, and women can't be sexist, it's an affront to your sense of equity.

I think she's linguistically incorrect. I think her words demonstrate a misunderstanding of linguistics. Words mean what people use them to mean. And people use racism and sexism to describe prejudice based on race and sex, not merely majoritarian prejudice.

But I also t ...

Maybe I am confused, but my friend Merriam-Webster said it meant

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex;especially:discrimination against women2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sexBesides the dictionary, I can use her definition of the word, which was "Sexism is a word with a very specific meaning, which is a certain group having more access than another group to the things that make life worth living, such as high wages and good housing."There are innumerable situations in which any individual holding power can give preference to those with favorable (often like) attributes, including gender, race, age, etc. I did, in fact, read beyond the highlighted portion, and while I understand and appreciate her opinion, she is wrong.

Mambo Bananapatch:redqueenmeg: The Flexecutioner: redqueenmeg: The Flexecutioner: well, she married the guy on the couch, not the one in her dream. he farts when he wants to and eats fried chicken in sweatpants on a couch while watching an awesome tv while she wears a business suit presumably on her way somewhere important just after walking out of the kitchen. who's the stupid one?

crap, you just described my life till 2012.

i assume you ditched the zero and got with the hero?

The zero ditched me. Haven't found a hero.

*jumps up from couch, wipes chicken grease from face with t-shirt, tucks in t-shirt*

heili skrimsli:WhippingBoy: Mugato: PsiChick: commercials like that train men to behave that way

Any man who changes his behavior according to some commercial is an idiot in the first place.

It's PsiChick. You're wasting your time responding. Soon she'll be posting absurd citations to counter arguments that absolutely no one has actually made.

But in a sick, twisted way I want to know how PsiChick can spin the SUV commercial in which men in the woods hear Dueling Banjos and run like hell because they're afraid of being raped all Deliverance style.

No worries. When she enters a thread, it *is* kind of like a real life version of Rain Man or Forest Gump, so there's definitely some entertainment value.

Kahabut:PsiChick: SearchN: Gail Dines, an expert on sexist images in the media and a professor of sociology and women's studies at Wheelock College in Boston, agrees. "It's not funny because it normalizes masculine behavior and makes a joke of it," she told Yahoo! Shine in a phone interview. "It's the reality of many women's lives, who get dinner ready, take care of the children, help with homework and do the housework, while the husbands are, in fact, sloth-like."

She almost made it through without slipping and showing the man hate card. So close. Maybe next time.

That's called the 'Mook' by advertisers. Yes, it exists IRL. She's stating fact, not opinion, and she's right; commercials like that train men to behave that way (along with a lot of other culture). That's part of why it's sexist; it's encouraging that culture. Half the men I know act like this, and while I sympathize--you are what culture makes you--maybe we should change that culture so we aren't just farking men over.

You really are right off the deep end, and the best part is, it's entirely clear you actually think you are progressive and intelligent.

I'll explain. Someone makes a pretty good point, while ignoring the blatant sexism and stereotyping of the original author. You then take that blatant bullshiat one step further and pretend like this is some kind of trend. Is the concept real? Sure, the media portrayal constant, probably, I don't know. What I do know is that, as with almost all things, the stereotype is false, stupid and bigoted.

Not only does the original point pretend that women do all the house work and raise the kids and cook the food. In and of itself ridiculous. But you go on and reinforce that bullshiat with your own bullshiat, something along the lines of "men are lazy and disgusting, but it's not their fault because TV made them that way".

Seriously Psigirl, you need a reality check, and it can not come through a TV, nor the (apparently) incompetent instruction you've rece ...

During the height of Western misogyny, there were pioneer women books nowadays are being written about. Why the hell do you think a minor trend nowadays is going to encompass every single man? No, not every man acts like that, but it happens often enough to be noticeable and annoying. If we waited until 100% of the group being taught to act like idiots were falling in line, we'd never correct any social problem.

heili skrimsli:WhippingBoy: Mugato: PsiChick: commercials like that train men to behave that way

Any man who changes his behavior according to some commercial is an idiot in the first place.

It's PsiChick. You're wasting your time responding. Soon she'll be posting absurd citations to counter arguments that absolutely no one has actually made.

But in a sick, twisted way I want to know how PsiChick can spin the SUV commercial in which men in the woods hear Dueling Banjos and run like hell because they're afraid of being raped all Deliverance style.

I've never seen it, so I'd imagine the answer is 'someone in the advertising department was smoking weed'.

/You know, I come into the thread defending the idea this commercial is sexist, and people are still calling me names and being utterly biatchy about it. This says something.

PsiChick:During the height of Western misogyny, there were pioneer women books nowadays are being written about.

What?

Why the hell do you think a minor trend nowadays is going to encompass every single man? No, not every man acts like that, but it happens often enough to be noticeable and annoying. If we waited until 100% of the group being taught to act like idiots were falling in line, we'd never correct any social problem.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. If I said there was a major trend in young women, where they believe all men are rapists, and lazy, and stupid, and generally are the bad guys... if I said that, would you recognize that you are one of those women? Would you know that your supposed psychology is almost entirely bullshiat?

Also, and I want to be super clear about this part, if you or anyone you know or have met is being "trained" by TV... Actually no.. EVERYONE you know is in fact being trained by TV, except that you all seem to have forgotten that there is NO REALITY in that box, none what so ever.

PsiChick:/You know, I come into the thread defending the idea this commercial is sexist, and people are still calling me names and being utterly biatchy about it. This says something.

Mainly that we think you are a complete tool and even if what you said was factually accurate (and we both know it isn't), it would be our duty to point out how idiotic you are acting.

Kahabut:PsiChick: During the height of Western misogyny, there were pioneer women books nowadays are being written about.

What?

Why the hell do you think a minor trend nowadays is going to encompass every single man? No, not every man acts like that, but it happens often enough to be noticeable and annoying. If we waited until 100% of the group being taught to act like idiots were falling in line, we'd never correct any social problem.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. If I said there was a major trend in young women, where they believe all men are rapists, and lazy, and stupid, and generally are the bad guys... if I said that, would you recognize that you are one of those women? Would you know that your supposed psychology is almost entirely bullshiat?

Also, and I want to be super clear about this part, if you or anyone you know or have met is being "trained" by TV... Actually no.. EVERYONE you know is in fact being trained by TV, except that you all seem to have forgotten that there is NO REALITY in that box, none what so ever.

PsiChick: /You know, I come into the thread defending the idea this commercial is sexist, and people are still calling me names and being utterly biatchy about it. This says something.

Mainly that we think you are a complete tool and even if what you said was factually accurate (and we both know it isn't), it would be our duty to point out how idiotic you are acting.

PsiChick:Kahabut: PsiChick: During the height of Western misogyny, there were pioneer women books nowadays are being written about.

What?

Why the hell do you think a minor trend nowadays is going to encompass every single man? No, not every man acts like that, but it happens often enough to be noticeable and annoying. If we waited until 100% of the group being taught to act like idiots were falling in line, we'd never correct any social problem.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. If I said there was a major trend in young women, where they believe all men are rapists, and lazy, and stupid, and generally are the bad guys... if I said that, would you recognize that you are one of those women? Would you know that your supposed psychology is almost entirely bullshiat?

Also, and I want to be super clear about this part, if you or anyone you know or have met is being "trained" by TV... Actually no.. EVERYONE you know is in fact being trained by TV, except that you all seem to have forgotten that there is NO REALITY in that box, none what so ever.

PsiChick: /You know, I come into the thread defending the idea this commercial is sexist, and people are still calling me names and being utterly biatchy about it. This says something.

Mainly that we think you are a complete tool and even if what you said was factually accurate (and we both know it isn't), it would be our duty to point out how idiotic you are acting.

bugontherug:God-is-a-Taco: bugontherug:I don't agree with her definition either--nor yours. But I won't call either of you retarded. Rather, I'll try to encapsulate what's really going on in ways that are fair to both points of view.

I don't think this post makes sense to anyone that hasn't majored in sociology or women's or [race]'s studies.Kudos on playing psychologist, though, it adds more credibility for you to someone out there... possibly.

I didn't major in sociology, gender studies, or race studies. I've never even taken such a class. My undergraduate degree is from a small, very conservative university with very conservative student body. In 1992, the first choice in the Republican primary on my campus was Pat Buchanan. My course of studies included classes with classically ethnocentric names like "early western civilization," "modern western civilization," and "colonial American life."

It doesn't speak well of you that you equate trying to see the world from another's point of view with "playing psychologist." Your sort of egocentrism (an actual psychology term!) is a big part of what's wrong with America today.

stirfrybry:I think the husband was some kind of homosexual or something. Tjat's why he farted. His anus was so stretched out from anal sex, he had no hope of keeping the gas from escaping his love chute

Perhaps he was slack-sphinctored from years of savage pegging by his domineering wife. Likewise his dimwitted expression is all that's left of what was once a promising young engineer, artist, and athlete. When they met in college he was a double major in electrical engineering and astro-physics. On the side he composed music which he performed at bars and restaurants around their town. And he painted. Mostly oils but some watercolors. The president of their university commissioned him to paint his portait, and one of his family and paid him well for it. He had sponsorships for his lab work from General Electric, NASA, Lockheed, and the European Space Agency. And then he fell in love.

It was fun at first. She enjoyed his music and art, together they shared the magic of starlit nights at the observatory. He was fascinated by her studies of comparative literature. Being an engineer and a visual artist, he never really took the time to learn the complexities of language and written expression, and through his relationship to her his mind was opened to a whole new spectrum of human experience. The beauty of the words, the stories, the poetry, and all the images painted not on his canvas, but in his mind, by her writing gave him a fresh perspective on his own life and humanity at large. It was this joy that he'd found in his life with her that prompted him to hold fast to this radiant creature of inspiration and passion.

After the wedding, a loud and expensive affair filled with a dozen bridesmaids and fountains of champagne, dancers parading around exotic fruit platters, and wandering violinists. It took several days in all. They took an apartment in Manhattan. She had him paint it. And paint it again. And once more. Then she asked him to paint her portrait. And her nude. And her abstract. Out in the park. On the beach. Again in the park. Now with her new haircut. Write her a song. Not that song, a different one. And why are you at work so much, are you seeing someone else? I miss you. When can we start a family? I thought you wanted children. You used to have so much ambition. The only way I can respect you is if you submit to me as a woman submits to a man. This is my strap-on. You will learn to love it. And even if you don't you will learn to respect it.

Morning, noon, nighttime, she tormented him with it. "Pleasure me!" she'd demand. Stand right there, hold the vibrator just so, now...DON'T MOVE! uuhhnnnnnn unnnnnnn AAAHHHH!!!!!! OK, now, it's Mama's Turn. Endless pounding. At first it was erotic and exciting, but after weeks and weeks of this treatment he became delirious from sleep deprivation. She'd force him to wear increasingly larger butt-plugs, not just at home but when he went to work. All so he'd be capable of receiving whatever indignity she chose to thrust into him. And he took it. He took it all because he loved her and wanted her to be happy. But a man can only give so much. His music stopped. The painting was gone except for her frequent re-decorating demands, but that was never creative, merely toil to please her.

His professional work came to an end on the morning of a critical presentation of an interplanetary navigation system which could revolutionize space travel and unite the major space agencies of the world in a new age of exploration. The night before he was to show the world his remarkable vision, she was in a foul mood of lust and rage and kept him trussed to the bed for 5 hours while she would pose and reposition him, penetrating him deeply with her strapped-on phalluses. Now the big one. Now the long one. Now the nubby one. Now from the top. Now from the bottom. She plugged him up and left him bound like a Christmas goose as she went to the kitchen for a snack, then fell asleep on the sofa. No sleep for him, though. And in this ragged condition, after months of this treatment, he failed miserably when his golden moment finally arrived. He was late, disheveled, unwashed, smelling of sexual lubricants and his own feces which he could barely contain, his bowels so cruelly distended and abused by his wife. The woman he once saw as his perfect companion. The yin to his yang. But that dream was gone.

Now he's a flatuent idiot, reduced to a servile imbecile for her amusement and nothing more. Sometimes when she's high she dreams of what he might have been, but those dreams usually crash down in an ugly spiral of bitterness as the images inevitably return to her forcing his crawling servitude, and she awakes to find herself kneeling behind him, plunging one more humiliation into his ruined backside, his manhood atrophied. His sanity and self-respect, mere memories.

heili skrimsli:Kahabut: Mainly that we think you are a complete tool and even if what you said was factually accurate (and we both know it isn't), it would be our duty to point out how idiotic you are acting.

Well that's a wordy way of putting 'You're well known as the village crackpot.'

Just out of curiosity, because it could go either way, do you mean her or me as the crackpot?